LLM-Enabled Data Transmission in End-to-End Semantic Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging services such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) have increased the volume of data transmitted in wireless communication systems, revealing the limitations of traditional Shannon theory. To address these limitations, semantic communication has been proposed as a solution that prioritizes the meaning of messages over the exact transmission of bits. This paper explores semantic communication for text data transmission in end-to-end (E2E) systems through a novel approach called KG-LLM semantic communication, which integrates knowledge graph (KG) extraction and large language model (LLM) coding. In this method, the transmitter first utilizes a KG to extract key entities and relationships from sentences. The extracted information is then encoded using an LLM to obtain the semantic meaning. On the receiver side, messages are decoded using another LLM, while a bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (i.e., BERT) model further refines the reconstructed sentences for improved semantic similarity. The KG-LLM semantic communication method reduces the transmitted text data volume by $30 \%$ through KG-based compression and achieves $84 \%$ semantic similarity between the original and received messages. This demonstrates the KG-LLM methods efficiency and robustness in semantic communication systems, outperforming the deep learning-based semantic communication model (DeepSC), which achieves only $63 \%$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".